THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM<br /> Present:<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath. P., President<br /> Smt. Bindhu M., Thomas, Member<br /> CC No. 227/06<br /> Thursday, the 5th day of June, 2008.<br /> Petitioner : Smt. Jancy Joseph,<br /> Mudakadiyil House,<br /> Perumthuruthu P.O,<br /> Kallara.<br /> Vs.<br /> Opposite parties : 1. The KSEB, <br /> Vaidhyuthibhavan,<br /> Pattom, Trivandrum.<br /> Reptd. By its Secretary.<br /> 2. Assistant Engineer,<br /> Electricity Office,<br /> Kaduthuruthy.<br /> 3. Junior Engineer,<br /> KSEB, Kaduthuruthy.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath.P., President.<br /> Case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> Petitioner is the consumer of the opposite party Electricity Board. Petitioner was served an additional bill on November, 2006 for an amount of Rs. 7728/-. The petitioner states that the said bill is issued without any basis. According to the petitioner she has not consumed such huge amount of electricity during said period for which the additional bill is issued. The petitioner states that the additional bill is issued without any finding of fault with meter. So, she prays for setting aside the bill and she also claims Rs. 2000/- as cost of the proceedings. <br /> The opposite party filed version contenting that the bill issued is legal and the energy meter of the petitioner was faulty from 7/03 to 9/04. The faulty meter was replaced by an electronic meter on 18..9..2004. According to the opposite party the petitioner had been paying bymonthly bill of Rs. 160/- for, an average assumed, energy consumption of 100 units for the period from 7/03 to 5/04 and an average energy consumption of 200 units for a period from 7/04 to 9/04 and after the change of the meter<br /> <br /> -2-<br /> the consumption was 457, 474, 340 units respectively. So the Regional Audit Officer, KSEB, instructed the opposite party for back assessment for the period when the meter was found faulty. . So, according to the opposite party the bill for an amount Rs. 7228/- is a back assessed bill during the period when the meter was faulty. So there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.<br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs if any?<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext. A1 <br /> document.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The petitioner during the time of trial filed a petition as IA 102/07 for sending the electric meter for testing. The forum allowed the petition and appointed Dy. Electrical Inspector in charge of Kaduthuruthy electrical section as the commissioner. The petitioner herself mistakenly gave the order to the office of the opposite party and any how the meter was not tested and the case was posted for evidence. The petitioner produced a bill dated 1..11..2006, the said document is marked as Ext. A1 document. From Ext. A1 it can be seen that the said bill is a revised bill issued to petitioner for the period in which the meter was faulty.<br /> As per section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act 1910, where any difference or dispute arisen as to whether any matter refered to in subsection (i) ie. “with regard fault with the meter the matter shall be decided by an Electrical Inspector”. Here the opposite party has no case that the fact of fault was detected by an Electrical Inspector. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Nirmala Metal Industries vs. KSEB reported in 2006 (3) KLT 465 has stated that if the board wants to raise a bill on the plea that it is a defective meter, it is for the board to take the meter from the premises of the consumer and raise a bill in accordance with section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910. Here the opposite party has no case that meter was tested by the board as provided under section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910. Furthermore we are of the opinion that if the meter is found <br /> -3-<br /> defective it is the duty of the opposite party to install a correct meter and to get the defective meter tested by an Electrical Inspector. Here by removing the meter from the premises by the board without preparing any mahazar by the opposite party is spoiling the <br /> best evidence available. So the issuance of a bill on the allegation of faulty meter without any opinion from an electrical Inspector with regard to faulty meter is not good in the eye of law. So, we are of the opiion that issuance of Ext. A1 bill is not according to law or rules prevailing. Hence the bill issued is liable to be cancelled and we find that the said act of issuance of a bill without proof of faulty meter is a clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of the findings in point No. 1 the petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for.<br /> In the result the following order is passed. Ext. A1 bill dtd: 1..11..2006 for an amount of Rs. 7728/- is cancelled. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. No cost and compensation is ordered.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 5th day of June, 2008